How about months? At least Mozilla and Xiph are doing those works and many other member. If it was Google i dont know what mess it will end up with.

I'm afraid this is not going to be the perfect codec we are looking for. Lots of compromises (old tools kept due to hardware vendor demands and VP9 legacy etc.) due to the time frame and a lot of tools simply not being integrated. The AOM is still at a pretty young age right now, but it is better to ship an imperfect but very good codec rather than delaying another few years and miss overtaking HEVC and VP9.

AV2 is going to have far fewer compromises simply because there will be more time (10 years?), especially once the kinks in organisation within AOM have been worked out and at that stage any major gains will have to be gotten from better tools and architecture rather than stuffing more things into it. It may be possible that more radical ideas will be used including some sort of hybrid codec like OPUS (AV1 and Daala hybrid perhaps?).

Compromise is key here. As long as the bitstream is solid and no massive bugs are left it should do well.

After seeing the FOSDEM video, I mosty agree with the previous posts: too much and too big changes for an "almost" finished codec and hardware decoding dumbing down the codec. They could have simply made a profile for hardware decoding and one for software to solve all of this. Kind of like AAC.

and hardware decoding dumbing down the codec. They could have simply made a profile for hardware decoding and one for software to solve all of this. Kind of like AAC.

Well, we might be better off having a somewhat simpler and conventional format (with substantial improvements) now that can be adopted easily and quickly and then have a revolutionary one years later. A proper new format that throws away all baggage and conventions probably takes several years to produce anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

That solves nothing. Any consumer media would never use those features that don't work with hardware, so its wasted effort to even consider them.

That's kind of surprising. I'd expect even from smartphones of the past few years to decode FullHD content on CPU power alone.

That's kind of surprising. I'd expect even from smartphones of the past few years to decode FullHD content on CPU power alone.

I'm not sure if they could, don't have final decode complexity figures yet, but even if they can it would burn much more battery then using a bitstream that can be hardware decoded, so its far from ideal.

That solves nothing. Any consumer media would never use those features that don't work with hardware, so its wasted effort to even consider them.

Yeah, the industry would probably only use the hardware profile. But a codec that's supposed to replace almost all other codecs might be used for archiving too. I'm not even talking about encoding done by individuals where something like h264's high10 got some use.

I guess it comes to the point, that the companies involved want working hardware decoders rather sooner than later. So saving time on implementing hardware decoders is a huge deal. the question, I cannot answer, is: how much better could hardware decoders get, if they make them from scratch? (in other words. is it worth the effort?)

One actual question, I have, is, are Xiph/Mozilla still working on Daala? (will Daala ship on it's own one day?)
Not that I want that to happen. One codec is better than several. But it's interesting to know, whether they still consider doing it for some reason

About: http://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisi...nd-a-solution/
Nice read, thx for sharing it
Moving away from profiles to tool-based encoders doesn't seem to be a good option(IMO), since it complicates the encoder/decoder situation a lot more
especially since all tools have to work together somehow.

it's kind of stupid though, that big parts of the industry only saw their own profits instead of the bigger picture.
well, it's their own pile of shards now.
AOM has chances to win.

I wonder what the broadcast industry will choose in 15-30 years. Or the movie making industry, in-case there is a new type of disc format. ^^

About his last paragraph:
Do we actually need a better, new codec after av1 and opus for media?
(at least on the web, the web needed an open codec for several reasons, even if the model of implementing such a codec isn't profitabel at first
this might not keep broadcasters and the media industry and so on from paying royalties for better codecs; they have the perfect business model to do so after all (unlike the web))

But a codec that's supposed to replace almost all other codecs might be used for archiving too.

Look at the companies behind AOM and tell me which one of them cares about archiving? I don't even remember it being mentioned as a use case for netvc. And also when did they say that the coded is supposed to "replace almost all other codecs"? I thought that AV1 main focus was clear - internet streaming (including game content) and internet real-time communications.

Look at the companies behind AOM and tell me which one of them cares about archiving? I don't even remember it being mentioned as a use case for netvc. And also when did they say that the coded is supposed to "replace almost all other codecs"? I thought that AV1 main focus was clear - internet streaming (including game content) and internet real-time communications.

That doesn't mean it can't be used for everything else. Especially since it's free and supposedly superior to all contemporary lossy codecs.
Also, it seems to me that there's a shift towards the internet from discs and such and television broadcasts.

Look at the companies behind AOM and tell me which one of them cares about archiving? I don't even remember it being mentioned as a use case for netvc. And also when did they say that the coded is supposed to "replace almost all other codecs"? I thought that AV1 main focus was clear - internet streaming (including game content) and internet real-time communications.

How can it be used for internet real-time communications, when the encoding is really expensive?

Well, we might be better off having a somewhat simpler and conventional format (with substantial improvements) now that can be adopted easily and quickly and then have a revolutionary one years later. A proper new format that throws away all baggage and conventions probably takes several years to produce anyway.

That's kind of surprising. I'd expect even from smartphones of the past few years to decode FullHD content on CPU power alone.

Premium content requires HW DRM which means HW decode. A SW-only codec may get used by hobbyists, but won't be by the content industry.